6

Unsurprisingly, this issue has plagued OT since its inception a quarter century ago. One issue is defining exactly what "problem" is: my own view is that the relevant question should not involve reifying a phenomenon (opacity), it involves comparison of analytic devices (ordering versus...). The term "opacity" was introduced by Kiparsky in 1971, but has ...


6

I don't know much about Catalan, but based on the example it seems like a more accurate analysis is that nasals assimilate in place to following obstruents and then word-final non-continuants undergo deletion. So: /ben+k/ --> beŋk beŋk --> [beŋ] This interaction is opaque because once the word-final consonant is deleted we no longer see on the surface what ...


5

There is some confusion in the question owing to the use of the word "pronunciation". There is a constraint-based theory of phonological computation, Optimality Theory, which is the dominant theory in phonology. However, it is not about "pronunciation", it is about phonemic outputs qua sequences of letters (in IPA or some other transcriptional system). If ...


3

They are explaining how the optimal candidate isn't necessarily a 'perfect' candidate, as it will likely still not comply with some of the constraints. But what makes the optimal candidate optimal is not that it violates NO constraints, but violates the LEAST NUMBER OF constraints -- also accounting for constraint ranking, e.g. in a hypothetical example ...


3

This is a bit old but I ran across it in the evaluation thread and I thought it could really use some work. PARSE and FILL are paired constraints that in the early days of OT were used to drive epenthesis/deletion, and have largely been replaced by more general MAX and DEP. The term "parse" here refers to the relationship between a string and some kind of ...


2

Unsurprisingly, the Wikipedia claim misstates the situation. OT is a theory of "derivational mechanics", and autosegmental phonology or linear phonology are theories of representation. One therefore find many analyses conducted in OT which assume autosegmental representations, and ones which assume SPE-style representations. Wiki is creating a false ...


2

The motivation underlying autosegmental phonology is that phonological processes frequently are not well-described by the 1-to-1 feature-to-segment relations assumed in SPE phonology, especially in the domain of tone. OT was motivated by a desire to reduce phonological mappings to just the notion of constraint, without any (language specific) component of "...


2

When a tableau is comparing two candidates, a W indicates that the constraint in that column favors the winning candidate, while an L indicates that it favors the losing candidate. In the example above, Candidate A is the loser and Candidate B is the winner. FAITH(Neg) favors the winner, since the winner violates it zero times and the loser violates it once....


2

There are vast numbers of such works, if you have the right criteria. As a starting point, there are the volumes in the Phonologies of the World's Languages series. The issue of "framework" may complicate the matter. Brame's dissertation on Classical Arabic phonology was written after SPE, but was still within that broad framework. Sommerstein's The Sound ...


2

The simple answer is, yes, there are myriads. As far as I know, there is no work that attempts to assemble all or even 50% of the instances of epenthesis and deletion across languages, and discuss what it all means within OT (that would be way too broad). An "overview" would probably mention the best-known trends, and there are a number of such works (...


2

It depends on what you consider to be an essential, defining feature of the theory. Your question about “explanation” points to the biggest problem: the theory attempted to encapsulate an explanation for all of the facts of phonetics and phonology in the theory of representations. This was a tragic mistake, which we are still trying to eradicate. The slogan ...


2

The best entry-level introduction I've found is Matt Gurevitch's OT Machine, a tool for conlangers to build and test out Optimality Theory-based models. It includes an overview of how OT works in general which is significantly more accessible than most published papers on OT. (Optimality theory has problems with opacity, in more ways than one!) The original ...


2

In phonology, one problem with demonstrating this is that there is little agreement on what is in the universal set of constraints. It is widely assume that there is some scheme of segment-penalizations where every occurrence of a segment receives a star, and that is why every segment can in principle be deleted in some language. If every representation ...


2

Richness of the Base (RotB) is a slogan referring to the fact that Optimality Theory only evaluates output, and has no mechanism for saying what things exist in inputs. This is in contrast with rules-based theories which has Morpheme Structure Constraints that could say e.g. "No morpheme can end with a consonant". There are a number of paraphrases ...


1

This can be disposed of with a contrast-enhancement constraints, which makes the output of /p/ vs. /b/ more perceptually salient (there being more phonetic cues to identify the distinction when voiceless stops are aspirated). Here is one of hundreds of ways to integrate contrast-enhancement. The claim that aspirated stops are mark is itself a highly ...


1

First thing to remember is that in OT, constraints do not allow, they forbid. Second thing to remember is that markedness constraints are about all representations, not just featuress. Third thing to remember is that all constraint, not just markedness, are claimed to be universal. Fourth thing to remember is that while it is a prevalent trend in OT to ...


1

A few abstract properties are the same (sometimes the terminologies is different, but that is not a real difference). One that the grammar computes the relationship between underlying form and surface form. Another is that the grammar is a set of ordered computations on representations (in RBP the computation is a string-to-string mapping and in OT it is a ...


1

CodaCond is short for "Coda Condition", and, according to McCarthy (2008: 225), is violated once per "consonant place specification that is not linked with an onset consonant (Ito 1989). Sometimes used as a cover constraint for a collection of restrictions on consonant clusters that includes the Coda-Condition proper." OCP is presumably short for "...


1

In ("standard") OT, there is a given list of constraints – the problem is nobody knows what the exact set of constraints is. Typically, people intuit the phonetic motivation for a particular change, then write a constraint that does that. For Korean, there is a rampant nasalization pattern where any obstruent becomes nasal before another nasal. So there is a ...


1

The distinction is generally framed in terms of the notion of "time-invariant computation", whether the output of one computation requires the results from another computation to be available. In a serial derivation, as in the case of a standard pre-OT phonology, it is possible for one rule to apply first, and apply a second rule after that – in a series. ...


1

For those linguistic theories that distinguish underlying from surface expressions by deriving surface from underlying using transformation rules of some sort, when several changes are required to get from underlying to surface, one must decide how many steps the derivation can have. If there are many changes involved and only two steps, that requires ...


1

Stratal approaches offer a way to deal with morpho-phonological opacity, which is one of the biggest challenges to the traditional monostratal version of OT. A few years ago I looked at some inflectional paradigm data from several languages--Japanese, Ukrainian, and Turkish. In each of these languages I found a handful of forms that on the surface appear to ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible